I can't agree that Fox's demographic is "older." They have a large following of younger viewers. To the point where I believe it is the only credible news outlet on TV that actively markets to young people by way of shows like Red Eye and The Five. You think all of those hot women are on Fox for the 60+ crowd that can't get it upanymore?

Do you? I'm in my mid 20s. None of my friends watch cable news, at least not regularly. They either don't care about current events at all, or they get their news from the internet.

I've never heard of "The Five." But Red Eye is a show that they put on at 2am and don't ever spend money on and have no production values. I think Red Eye is a trial balloon show that they put their young anchors on to start out. It certainly is not a focus of their network.

As for their attractive anchors and older men not appreciating it...have you ever been to a decent strip club? It ain't younger dudes making up the majority of the crowd.

Like I theorized, 75% of Fox's viewers are over the age of 35. This is probably even worse today, because that study is five years old and the demographics of this country have only gotten worse (as the baby boomers have aged).

I can't agree that Fox's demographic is "older." They have a large following of younger viewers. To the point where I believe it is the only credible news outlet on TV that actively markets to young people by way of shows like Red Eye and The Five. You think all of those hot women are on Fox for the 60+ crowd that can't get it upanymore?

Do you? I'm in my mid 20s. None of my friends watch cable news, at least not regularly. They either don't care about current events at all, or they get their news from the internet.

I've never heard of "The Five." But Red Eye is a show that they put on at 2am and don't ever spend money on and have no production values. I think Red Eye is a trial balloon show that they put their young anchors on to start out. It certainly is not a focus of their network.

As for their attractive anchors and older men not appreciating it...have you ever been to a decent strip club? It ain't younger dudes making up the majority of the crowd.

Like I theorized, 75% of Fox's viewers are over the age of 35. This is probably even worse today, because that study is five years old and the demographics of this country have only gotten worse (as the baby boomers have aged).

I don't think there's any question that the viewers of cable news are skewed significantly older than the rest of the population. That's pretty much always been true. Younger people in general don't care as much about news events. This is reflected not only in viewing patterns, but also in voting patterns. I went to the US Census site to get this data, so I trust it is accurate. Doing a quick analysis, here's the % of people that have voted, on average since 1980, for each age group:

18-24: 29.4%25-44: 45.9%45-64: 61.4%65+: 64.1%

The numbers show that clearly, younger people just don't care as much. It's not until around the age of 40 that even half of the voters even vote. I think that shows who's paying attention.

_________________"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson

The Daily Caller just published a long expose on Media Matters and their coordination with the lamestream media and the Obama Administration. I'll only post the first page here, but it's worth reading all six pages of it:

This is the first in a Daily Caller investigative series on Media Matters For America. Daily Caller reporters Alex Pappas and Will Rahn contributed to this report.

David Brock was smoking a cigarette on the roof of his Washington, D.C. office one day in the late fall of 2010 when his assistant and two bodyguards suddenly appeared and whisked him and his colleague Eric Burns down the stairs.

Brock, the head of the liberal nonprofit Media Matters for America, had told friends and co-workers that he feared he was in imminent danger from right-wing assassins and needed a security team to keep him safe.

The threat he faced while smoking on his roof? “Snipers,” a former co-worker recalled.

“He had more security than a Third World dictator,” one employee said, explaining that Brock’s bodyguards would rarely leave his side, even accompanying him to his home in an affluent Washington neighborhood each night where they “stood post” to protect him. “What movement leader has a detail?” asked someone who saw it.

Extensive interviews with a number of Brock’s current and former colleagues at Media Matters, as well as with leaders from across the spectrum of Democratic politics, reveal an organization roiled by its leader’s volatile and erratic behavior and struggles with mental illness, and an office where Brock’s executive assistant carried a handgun to public events in order to defend his boss from unseen threats.

Yet those same interviews, as well as a detailed organizational planning memo obtained by The Daily Caller, also suggest that Media Matters has to a great extent achieved its central goal of influencing the national media.

Founded by Brock in 2004 as a liberal counterweight to “conservative misinformation” in the press, Media Matters has in less than a decade become a powerful player in Democratic politics. The group operates in regular coordination with the highest levels of the Obama White House, as well as with members of Congress and progressive groups around the country. Brock, who collected over $250,000 in salary from Media Matters in 2010, has himself become a major fundraiser on the left. According to an internal memo obtained by TheDC, Media Matters intends to spend nearly $20 million in 2012 to influence news coverage.

Donors have every reason to expect success, as the group’s effect on many news organizations has already been profound. “We were pretty much writing their prime time,” a former Media Matters employee said of the cable channel MSNBC. “But then virtually all the mainstream media was using our stuff.”

The group scored its first significant public coup in 2007 with the firing of host Don Imus from MSNBC. Just before Easter that year, a Media Matters employee recorded Imus’s now-famous attack on the Rutgers women’s basketball team, and immediately recognized its inflammatory potential. The organization swung into action, notifying organizations like the NAACP, the National Association of Black Journalists, and Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, all of which joined the fight.

Over the course of a week, Media Matters mobilized more than 50 people to work full-time adding fuel to the Imus story. Researchers searched the massive Media Matters database for controversial statements Imus had made over the years. The group issued press release after press release. Brock personally called the heads of various liberal activist groups to coordinate a message. By the end of the week, Imus was fired.

I can't agree that Fox's demographic is "older." They have a large following of younger viewers. To the point where I believe it is the only credible news outlet on TV that actively markets to young people by way of shows like Red Eye and The Five. You think all of those hot women are on Fox for the 60+ crowd that can't get it upanymore?

Do you? I'm in my mid 20s. None of my friends watch cable news, at least not regularly. They either don't care about current events at all, or they get their news from the internet.

I've never heard of "The Five." But Red Eye is a show that they put on at 2am and don't ever spend money on and have no production values. I think Red Eye is a trial balloon show that they put their young anchors on to start out. It certainly is not a focus of their network.

As for their attractive anchors and older men not appreciating it...have you ever been to a decent strip club? It ain't younger dudes making up the majority of the crowd.

Like I theorized, 75% of Fox's viewers are over the age of 35. This is probably even worse today, because that study is five years old and the demographics of this country have only gotten worse (as the baby boomers have aged).

Touchdown Jesus wrote:

Blueskies wrote:

Quote:

I can't agree that Fox's demographic is "older." They have a large following of younger viewers. To the point where I believe it is the only credible news outlet on TV that actively markets to young people by way of shows like Red Eye and The Five. You think all of those hot women are on Fox for the 60+ crowd that can't get it upanymore?

Do you? I'm in my mid 20s. None of my friends watch cable news, at least not regularly. They either don't care about current events at all, or they get their news from the internet.

I've never heard of "The Five." But Red Eye is a show that they put on at 2am and don't ever spend money on and have no production values. I think Red Eye is a trial balloon show that they put their young anchors on to start out. It certainly is not a focus of their network.

As for their attractive anchors and older men not appreciating it...have you ever been to a decent strip club? It ain't younger dudes making up the majority of the crowd.

Like I theorized, 75% of Fox's viewers are over the age of 35. This is probably even worse today, because that study is five years old and the demographics of this country have only gotten worse (as the baby boomers have aged).

I don't think there's any question that the viewers of cable news are skewed significantly older than the rest of the population. That's pretty much always been true. Younger people in general don't care as much about news events. This is reflected not only in viewing patterns, but also in voting patterns. I went to the US Census site to get this data, so I trust it is accurate. Doing a quick analysis, here's the % of people that have voted, on average since 1980, for each age group:

18-24: 29.4%25-44: 45.9%45-64: 61.4%65+: 64.1%

The numbers show that clearly, younger people just don't care as much. It's not until around the age of 40 that even half of the voters even vote. I think that shows who's paying attention.

You guys are making two separate points. Blueskies was claiming that Fox New's popularity rests with the age of their viewers. He was contending that their appeal among older individuals is the cause of their high ratings. TDJ is simply claiming that news viewers tend to be older, which I don't disagree.

I never said that the demographic for news isn't older than a general television demographic. What I said was that Fox New's demographic isn't any older than other networks - MSNBC, CNN, etc., which doesn't account for their overwhelming popularity over the other networks as was claimed by Blueskies.

I never said that the demographic for news isn't older than a general television demographic. What I said was that Fox New's demographic isn't any older than other networks - MSNBC, CNN, etc., which doesn't account for their overwhelming popularity over the other networks as was claimed by Blueskies.

I have one other assumption: that older viewers tend to lean conservative. If this assumption is correct, (which I believe it is) then Fox's dominance is no surprise. Older people as a rule tend to be more conservative, the ones that aren't probably don't watch the news. Like if you opened 5 different restaurants in little Italy--the Italian one may fair the best, even if the other ones serve relatively good food.

Of course older people tend to be more conservative. They've seen how the world works and can generally tell the difference between fantasy and reality. As someone once said, "if you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative at 30, you have no brain". There's a lot of truth in that statement.

_________________

February 17th, 2012, 6:29 pm

TheRealWags

Modmin Dude

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12488

Re: Who is the "lamestream" media?

Pablo wrote:

Lamestream Media refers to left leaning news organizations (which are the majority). Combine "Mainstream" and "Left" and throw in some "Lame" according to conservatives.

This is a term driven by right/conservative talk shows and regurgitated by their followers.

It is all rather silly, I tend to try to get more of a global news perspective but even there you get left or right leaning tendancies. Got to put your own filter on it.

m2karateman wrote:

the lamestream media is any news source or media outlet who doesn't believe the same as the person who is using the term at that time.

next question.....

Agreed, and pretty much verified by one of our far right members:

slybri19 wrote:

The lamestream media consists of NBC (Nothing But Commies), CBS (See BS), ABC (Anarchists, Bolsheviks, and Communists), CNN (Communist News Nework), MSNBC (Most Socialist Network on Basic Cable), New York Slimes, Washington Compost, A-hole Progressives, and a number of other far left members of the media. They're entrusted to be unbiased and objective with the news, but they have been anything but since atleast the Wakter Cronkite era. Anyone who believes otherwise is blind, ignorant, or a leftist ideologue.

_________________

Quote:

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

February 20th, 2012, 3:48 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Who is the "lamestream" media?

TheRealWags wrote:

Pablo wrote:

Lamestream Media refers to left leaning news organizations (which are the majority). Combine "Mainstream" and "Left" and throw in some "Lame" according to conservatives.

This is a term driven by right/conservative talk shows and regurgitated by their followers.

It is all rather silly, I tend to try to get more of a global news perspective but even there you get left or right leaning tendancies. Got to put your own filter on it.

m2karateman wrote:

the lamestream media is any news source or media outlet who doesn't believe the same as the person who is using the term at that time.

next question.....

Agreed, and pretty much verified by one of our far right members:

slybri19 wrote:

The lamestream media consists of NBC (Nothing But Commies), CBS (See BS), ABC (Anarchists, Bolsheviks, and Communists), CNN (Communist News Nework), MSNBC (Most Socialist Network on Basic Cable), New York Slimes, Washington Compost, A-hole Progressives, and a number of other far left members of the media. They're entrusted to be unbiased and objective with the news, but they have been anything but since atleast the Wakter Cronkite era. Anyone who believes otherwise is blind, ignorant, or a leftist ideologue.

I can't agree. Sure, I'm kind of right wing (I have all sorts of libertarianism issues that go against traditional "Conservative" ideology in the U.S.), but any "News" source that leaves out entire stories, covers things up completely, paints a one sided picture, etc. has to be called something, and unfortunately that's the majority of News sites not associated with Fox news.

Now I'll add... I don't think Fox is as "noble" as they come across. I think they would hide things and do all of the dirty things the other networks do, if they could. However, the Left news sources overwhelmingly get out the dirty laundry of the Right, and they HAVE to address it and cover it. They HAVE to cover both sides, because the "dirty side" is already out there.

February 20th, 2012, 3:52 pm

TheRealWags

Modmin Dude

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12488

Re: Who is the "lamestream" media?

wjb21ndtown wrote:

TheRealWags wrote:

Pablo wrote:

Lamestream Media refers to left leaning news organizations (which are the majority). Combine "Mainstream" and "Left" and throw in some "Lame" according to conservatives.

This is a term driven by right/conservative talk shows and regurgitated by their followers.

It is all rather silly, I tend to try to get more of a global news perspective but even there you get left or right leaning tendancies. Got to put your own filter on it.

m2karateman wrote:

the lamestream media is any news source or media outlet who doesn't believe the same as the person who is using the term at that time.

next question.....

Agreed, and pretty much verified by one of our far right members:

slybri19 wrote:

The lamestream media consists of NBC (Nothing But Commies), CBS (See BS), ABC (Anarchists, Bolsheviks, and Communists), CNN (Communist News Nework), MSNBC (Most Socialist Network on Basic Cable), New York Slimes, Washington Compost, A-hole Progressives, and a number of other far left members of the media. They're entrusted to be unbiased and objective with the news, but they have been anything but since atleast the Wakter Cronkite era. Anyone who believes otherwise is blind, ignorant, or a leftist ideologue.

I can't agree. Sure, I'm kind of right wing (I have all sorts of libertarianism issues that go against traditional "Conservative" ideology in the U.S.), but any "News" source that leaves out entire stories, covers things up completely, paints a one sided picture, etc. has to be called something, and unfortunately that's the majority of News sites not associated with Fox news.

Now I'll add... I don't think Fox is as "noble" as they come across. I think they would hide things and do all of the dirty things the other networks do, if they could. However, the Left news sources overwhelmingly get out the dirty laundry of the Right, and they HAVE to address it and cover it. They HAVE to cover both sides, because the "dirty side" is already out there.

As the saying goes, "Follow the money" and ALL these 'major' news sources have their funding, therefore IMO the "info / news" they spread will ALWAYS have the slant of those doing the funding....

Is that too simplistic and, perhaps, too cynical? Maybe, but it usually bears out to be true

_________________

Quote:

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

February 20th, 2012, 4:11 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Who is the "lamestream" media?

Sure, but of those sources only ONE is Conservative.

February 20th, 2012, 4:14 pm

TheRealWags

Modmin Dude

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12488

Re: Who is the "lamestream" media?

wjb21ndtown wrote:

Sure, but of those sources only ONE claims to be Conservative.

Fixed.

IMO the problems lie in the claiming to be 'Conservative' or 'Liberal' shouldn't they just give the NEWS as is, without a lean to any side?

_________________

Quote:

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

February 20th, 2012, 4:23 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Who is the "lamestream" media?

TheRealWags wrote:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

Sure, but of those sources only ONE claims to be Conservative.

Fixed.

IMO the problems lie in the claiming to be 'Conservative' or 'Liberal' shouldn't they just give the NEWS as is, without a lean to any side?

That's fine, and IMO takes heat off of Fox.

IMO the real problem is that the others CLAIM to be neutral, and they're not.

I wish there was a way to have "news" sources that weren't partisan, but there's not. Even if they were made into non-profit corporations they would still be biased based on the personal views of the people running the show.

Well-known public radio host Garrison Keillor is hosting a fundraiser for President Obama in his home state of Minnesota.

Obama campaign manager Jim Messina will be in the North Star state this week for several events, including a fundraiser at the home of Keillor, Minnesota Public Radio reports.

Keillor is best known for the radio variety program A Prairie Home Companion, a show that features dispatches from the fictional Minnesota town Lake Wobegon. His show is produced by Minnesota Public Radio and airs on public radio stations across the country.

Keillor also endorsed Obama in 2008, saying that his election would "bring an end to a long sour chapter in our history." In response to Keillor's endorsement, Obama said in 2008, "as president, I will wake up every day thinking about how I can help make life better in places like Lake Wobegon all across the country."